4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the city of Uzhgorod, the Zakarpatye region.
5. In May 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Uzhgorod Social Security Department (the “SSD”), alleging that it had erroneously calculated his period of employment in posts of hardship, thus lowering the amount of the pension to which he was entitled.
6.  On 23 July 1999, after four hearings, three of which were adjourned due to the failure of the applicant's representative to appear, the Uzhgorod City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) allowed this complaint, ordering the SSD to include three years and five months of the applicant's employment at the Elektrodvygun Company in the said calculation.
7.  On 20 January 2000, at the SSD's request, the City Court quashed the judgment of 23 July 1999 due to new circumstances and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
8.  According to the documents provided by the Government, between February 2000 and January 2001 the court held one hearing. The scheduled hearings were cancelled on four occasions due to the applicant's failure to appear and on six occasions due to the absence of both parties.
9.  In the meantime the applicant requested that the trial judge be removed from the case, alleging that he intentionally delayed the proceedings. On 6 April 2000 the request was granted by the Acting President of the City Court, who found that “the proceedings were unduly delayed for different reasons” and assigned the case to another judge with a view to expediting the consideration of the claim.
10.  On 26 January 2001 the court dismissed the case because of the applicant's failure to appear.
11.  On 8 June 2001 the Deputy President of the Zakarpatye Regional Court, upon the applicant's request, filed a protest (an extraordinary appeal) against this decision. On 14 June 2001 the Presidium of the Zakarpatye Regional Court granted the protest, stating that there was no indication in the case file that the applicant had been duly informed about the time and place of the hearing. The decision of 26 January 2001 was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh consideration.
12.  On 26 June 2001 the City Court allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the SSD to recalculate the period of the applicant's employment in hardship posts.
13.  On 27 August 2001 the court ordered the Uzhgorod Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine (the “Fund”) to enforce the judgment.
14.  On 8 October 2001 the Fund challenged the judgment of 26 June 2001 under the cassation procedures it had not been the defendant in the case. On 28 November 2001 the Supreme Court returned the appeal without an examination on account of its formal shortcomings. On 6 February 2002 the Fund produced an amended cassation appeal.
15.  On 16 May 2002 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case for hearing by a judicial chamber
16.  The Supreme Court held one hearing. On 28 November 2002 it quashed the judgment of 26 June 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
17.  On 24 February 2003 the City Court appointed a technical expert from the State Department of Work Security to give an opinion in the case. On 7 April 2003 the expert informed the court that the relevant tests could not be carried out in the Department of Work Security for lack of adequate facilities. On 23 April 2003 the court appointed another expert and ordered that the appropriate examinations be performed in the Uzhgorod City Department of Work and Social Security. The expert's opinion was submitted on 27 May 2003.
18.  On 2 June 2003 the applicant challenged the participation of the trial judge on the ground of his alleged objective partiality. The same day the applicant's motion was upheld and the case was assigned to another judge.
19.  The proceedings were resumed on 7 August 2003. On 11 August 2003 the City Court allowed the applicant's claim. On 11 November 2003 the Zakarpatye Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 16 January 2004, following the Fund's cassation appeal, the case was referred to the Supreme Court where it is apparently still pending.
20.  In August 1999 the SSD granted the applicant an increased pension in compliance with the judgment of 23 July 1999.
21.  In January 2000 this decision was quashed due to the Uzhgorod City Court's resumption of the judicial proceedings relating to the applicant's claim.
22.  On 16 July 2001 the Uzhgorod City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 26 June 2001. According to a letter dated 20 November 2002 from the Fund, there had been several interruptions in the proceedings: in September 2001 they were suspended due to the Fund's request for the reopening of the case due to new circumstances; in March and October 2002 they were again suspended pending the examination of the Fund's cassation appeal. However, now the judgment had been fully enforced. The applicant had been awarded an increased pension and paid a lump sum of UAH 4,806[1] in back-payments. The applicant does not deny receiving this money.
23.  On 28 November 2002 the Supreme Court suspended the execution of the June 2001 judgment pending the examination of the Fund's cassation appeal.
24.  The applicant attempted on many occasions to institute criminal proceedings against A. (a pension expert) for alleged extortion. On 18 May 2001 the Uzhgorod City Prosecutor's Office rejected the applicant's complaints in the absence of any corpus delicti.
25.  In 1952 the applicant and his family had been deported from Ukraine to Chechnia by the Soviet authorities.
26.  By letter of 15 December 1999, the Zakarpatsky Regional Department of the Security Service informed the applicant that it was within the competence of the Uzhgorod Commission on the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Persecution to grant him compensation for these events.
27.  The applicant maintains that he has some UAH 20.000 deposited with the Savings Bank. However, this deposit has been “frozen” since 1992.